Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 14:10:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: rotel@indigo.ie Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, mike@smith.net.au, Nicolas.Souchu@prism.uvsq.fr, chuckr@glue.umd.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: C and static initialization with unions Message-ID: <199808081410.HAA13932@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199808081034.LAA00857@indigo.ie> from "Niall Smart" at Aug 8, 98 11:33:46 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The problem here is that "largely" is just as uncompilable as "not at > > all". > > Is it? How many developers care that isn't possible? Only the ones actually doing work with modern developement tools. In other words, only the ones you really want to hear from. > In general, sticking to ANSI C enforces some programming discipline, So does sticking to any particular style guide. > but if a gcc-ism significantly eases development of some code then I > think it makes sense to use it, and come back when some other > production compiler is being used. (if ever) The fallacy here is "any production compiler with gcc extensions". > It seems a trifle silly for everyone to have to use K&R-isms (which > I find a pita) just so you can use some obsolete compiler on some > obsolete processor. You find it a PITA/obsolete because you are bringing prejudices to the table with you. Specifically, because you already use GCC. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808081410.HAA13932>